The Experts below are selected from a list of 3609 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Gary S. Rogers - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • A Comparison of Dermabrasion and Superpulsed Carbon Dioxide Laser
    2017
    Co-Authors: Kristina A. Holmkvist, Gary S. Rogers
    Abstract:

    Objective: To directly compare the cosmetic outcome and adverse effects of Dermabrasion and superpulsed carbon dioxide laser for the treatment of perioral rhytides. Design: Subjects were randomly assigned to receive treatment with carbon dioxide laser resurfacing to one side of the perioral area and Dermabrasion to the other side in a prospective, comparative clinical study. The duration of follow-up by blinded observers was 4 months. Setting: University hospital-based dermatologic surgery clinic. Patients: Fifteen healthy fair-skinned volunteers with moderate to severe perioral rhytides and no history of prior cosmetic surgical procedures to the same anatomic area. Interventions: One half of the perioral area was treated with the LX-20SP Novapulse carbon dioxide laser (Luxar Corp, Bothell, Wash), and the other half was treated with Dermabrasion using either a hand engine‐driven diamond fraise or a medium-grade drywall sanding screen (3M Corp, St Paul, Minn). Main Outcome Measures: Improvement in rhytides, patients’ subjective reports of postoperative pain, time to reepithelialization, degree of postoperative crusting, and duration of postoperative erythema were observed for both methods. Standardized scoring systems were used to quantify outcome measures. Paired t tests were used for statistical comparisons of the 2 resurfacing methods. Results: The difference in rhytide scores for the 2 methods was not statistically significant (P=.35) at 4 months. Less postoperative crusting and more rapid reepithelialization were noted with the Dermabrasion-treated skin. Postoperative erythema was of longer duration on lasertreated skin. Patients reported less pain with Dermabrasion treatment. Subtle differences that were difficult to quantify were also noted between the methods. Conclusions: Both Dermabrasion and carbon dioxide laser resurfacing are effective in the treatment of perioral rhytides. Both methods have unique advantages and disadvantages.

  • treatment of perioral rhytides a comparison of Dermabrasion and superpulsed carbon dioxide laser
    Archives of Dermatology, 2000
    Co-Authors: Kristina A. Holmkvist, Gary S. Rogers
    Abstract:

    Objective To directly compare the cosmetic outcome and adverse effects of Dermabrasion and superpulsed carbon dioxide laser for the treatment of perioral rhytides. Design Subjects were randomly assigned to receive treatment with carbon dioxide laser resurfacing to one side of the perioral area and Dermabrasion to the other side in a prospective, comparative clinical study. The duration of follow-up by blinded observers was 4 months. Setting University hospital-based dermatologic surgery clinic. Patients Fifteen healthy fair-skinned volunteers with moderate to severe perioral rhytides and no history of prior cosmetic surgical procedures to the same anatomic area. Interventions One half of the perioral area was treated with the LX-20SP Novapulse carbon dioxide laser (Luxar Corp, Bothell, Wash), and the other half was treated with Dermabrasion using either a hand engine–driven diamond fraise or a medium-grade drywall sanding screen (3M Corp, St Paul, Minn). Main Outcome Measures Improvement in rhytides, patients' subjective reports of postoperative pain, time to reepithelialization, degree of postoperative crusting, and duration of postoperative erythema were observed for both methods. Standardized scoring systems were used to quantify outcome measures. Paired t tests were used for statistical comparisons of the 2 resurfacing methods. Results The difference in rhytide scores for the 2 methods was not statistically significant ( P =.35) at 4 months. Less postoperative crusting and more rapid reepithelialization were noted with the Dermabrasion-treated skin. Postoperative erythema was of longer duration on laser-treated skin. Patients reported less pain with Dermabrasion treatment. Subtle differences that were difficult to quantify were also noted between the methods. Conclusions Both Dermabrasion and carbon dioxide laser resurfacing are effective in the treatment of perioral rhytides. Both methods have unique advantages and disadvantages.

Timothy M. Johnson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • conventional diamond fraise vs manual spot Dermabrasion with drywall sanding screen for scars from skin cancer surgery
    Archives of Dermatology, 2002
    Co-Authors: Montgomery Gillard, Darrell J. Fader, Timothy S Wang, Charles M Boyd, Rodney L Dunn, Timothy M. Johnson
    Abstract:

    Objective To directly compare cosmetic improvement and postoperative sequelae resulting from Dermabrasion of surgical scars with conventional motor-powered diamond fraise vs manual Dermabrasion with medium-grade drywall sanding screen. Design Patients were randomly assigned to receive treatment with conventional diamond fraise Dermabrasion to one half of the scar and manual Dermabrasion with a drywall sanding screen to the other half in a prospective, comparative clinical study. Blinded observers assessed clinical variables during a 6-month follow-up period. Setting University hospital/cancer center–based cutaneous surgery unit. Patients Twenty-one healthy volunteers, Fitzpatrick skin type I to III, with contour irregularities resulting from granulation (7 patients) or reconstruction (14 patients) after skin cancer excision. Interventions One half of the patient's scar was treated with motor-powered diamond fraise Dermabrasion and the other half was treated with manual Dermabrasion with medium-grade drywall sanding screen. Main Outcome Measures Correction of contour, scarline visibility, time to reepithelialization, presence or absence of milia, degree of postoperative erythema, hypertrophic scarring, patients' subjective reports of postoperative pain, and presence of pigmentary changes were observed for both methods. Standardized scoring systems were used to quantify outcome measures. Results According to the standardized scoring systems, no differences were found between the 2 methods at any point. In addition, no significant differences were found between the methods for any measure at any of the time points. Conclusion Both Dermabrasion techniques are equally effective in improving the cosmetic appearance of surgical scars.

  • A comparison of wire brush and diamond fraisesuperficial Dermabrasion for photoaged skin
    Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 1996
    Co-Authors: Bruce R. Nelson, Montgomery Gillard, Russell D. Metz, Gopa Majmudar, Ted A. Hamilton, Divya Railan, Christopher E.m. Griffiths, Timothy M. Johnson
    Abstract:

    Background: Superficial Dermabrasion has a proven beneficial effect on photoaged skin, but little is known about the differences between the two major modalities used in Dermabrasion, the diamond fraise (DF) and the wire brush (WB). Objective: We compared the clinical, immunohistologic, and biochemical changes after superficial Dermabrasion with DF and WB. Methods: Eight photoaged patients (mean age, 68 years; range, 49 to 80 years) underwentfacial Dermabrasion to the level of the papillary dermis. Clinical assessments were performed at baseline and at 3 and 12 weeks after Dermabrasion. Biopsy specimens were taken from both dermabraded halves at the same time points and assessed by routine histologic and immunohistologic examinations, Western blot analysis, and radioimmunoassay. Scoring of intracellular and extracellular transforming growth factor-β1 was based on a semiquantitative ordinal scale (0=no staining to 4=maximum staining) in half-unit increments. The score for each specimen represents the average of values obtained from four high-power fields. Results: Both methods of Dermabrasion resulted in significant resolution of actinic keratoses, lentigines, and wrinkling. No statistical significance was noted between the two methods in regard to clinical efficacy. Significantly fewer milia occurred after DF than after WB. Solar elastosis decreased with both the WB and DF. Immunohistologic examination demonstrated a highly significant increase in papillary dermal fibroblast staining for amino terminal procollagen I (type I pN-collagen) at 3 weeks for both DF and WB compared to baseline. Staining at 12 weeks had decreased from the peak noted at week 3, but was still significantly increased from baseline. Western blotting of type I pN-collagen demonstrated a 5.4-fold ( p =0.01) increase from baseline at 3 weeks and a 4.9-fold ( p =0.002) increase at 12 weeks after Dermabrasion with the WB. Similarly, the DF produced a 4.9-fold ( p =0.006) increase at 3 weeks and a 5.1-fold ( p =0.008) increase at 12 weeks after Dermabrasion. Western blotting of amino terminal procollagen III (type III pN-collagen) showed a 6.1-fold ( p =0.07) increase from baseline at 3 weeks and a 3.9-fold ( p =0.04) increase at 12 weeks after Dermabrasion with the DF. The WB showed a 3.8-fold ( p =0.07) increase from baseline at 3 weeks and a 5.1-fold ( p =0.05) increase at 12 weeks. Transforming growth factor-β1 demonstrated a significant increase in extracellular staining with DF (3.3±0.2) and WB (3.7±0.2) from baseline (1.2±0.2, p Conclusion: Superficial Dermabrasion with DF and WP appears to be similarly efficaciousin the treatment of photoaged skin. Significant increases in type I pN-collagen, type III pN-collagen, and TGF-β1 occurred in the papillary dermis after both types of Dermabrasion. These results suggest that increased fibroblast activity and consequent collagen I and III synthesis underlie the clinical improvement.

  • The role of Dermabrasion and chemical peels in the treatment of patients with xeroderma pigmentosum
    Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 1995
    Co-Authors: Bruce R. Nelson, Darrell J. Fader, Montgomery Gillard, Shan R. Baker, Timothy M. Johnson
    Abstract:

    Abstract We describe our experience with two patients with xeroderma pigmentosum who underwent periodic trichloroacetic acid chemical peels. One also received a full-face Dermabrasion. The effect of chemical peeling was more transient than Dermabrasion but was associated with less morbidity. Both chemical peeling and Dermabrasion provided a prophylactic effect against the development of skin malignancies; the latter had a more pronounced effect.

Daniel B. Eisen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • electrobrasion vs manual Dermabrasion a randomized double blind comparative effectiveness trial
    British Journal of Dermatology, 2014
    Co-Authors: Rebecca Kleinerman, Oa Ibrahimi, April W. Armstrong, Thomas H. King, Daniel B. Eisen
    Abstract:

    Author(s): Kleinerman, R; Armstrong, AW; Ibrahimi, OA; King, TH; Eisen, DB | Abstract: BACKGROUND: Electrobrasion, like Dermabrasion, is a method of surgical planing that is purported to improve postoperative scarring. Data regarding its benefits and harms relative to Dermabrasion are absent. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and potential harms of electrobrasion and Dermabrasion. METHODS: This was a pragmatic, randomized, double-blind, split-scar intervention in patients with suboptimal surgical outcomes. Half of the wound was randomized to treatment with Dermabrasion and half to electrobrasion. At 3-month follow-up, both the patient and a blinded investigator evaluated the wound. RESULTS: Electrobrasion and Dermabrasion reduced the mean scores of the Manchester Scar Scale 1·6 and 1·3 points from baseline, respectively (P = 0·0003). The difference between treatments was not significant (P = 0·08). Global cosmetic improvement by physician and patient assessment indicated clinical improvement for both procedures but did not demonstrate statistical significance between treatments (P = 0·57, P = 0·32 for physician and patient, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Both Dermabrasion and electrobrasion improved scars, but there was no significant difference between the outcomes of the two procedures on several measures. Procedure time and bleeding time were significantly lower for electrobrasion.

  • Electrobrasion vs. manual Dermabrasion: a randomized, double‐blind, comparative effectiveness trial
    The British journal of dermatology, 2014
    Co-Authors: Rebecca Kleinerman, Oa Ibrahimi, April W. Armstrong, Thomas H. King, Daniel B. Eisen
    Abstract:

    Author(s): Kleinerman, R; Armstrong, AW; Ibrahimi, OA; King, TH; Eisen, DB | Abstract: BACKGROUND: Electrobrasion, like Dermabrasion, is a method of surgical planing that is purported to improve postoperative scarring. Data regarding its benefits and harms relative to Dermabrasion are absent. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and potential harms of electrobrasion and Dermabrasion. METHODS: This was a pragmatic, randomized, double-blind, split-scar intervention in patients with suboptimal surgical outcomes. Half of the wound was randomized to treatment with Dermabrasion and half to electrobrasion. At 3-month follow-up, both the patient and a blinded investigator evaluated the wound. RESULTS: Electrobrasion and Dermabrasion reduced the mean scores of the Manchester Scar Scale 1·6 and 1·3 points from baseline, respectively (P = 0·0003). The difference between treatments was not significant (P = 0·08). Global cosmetic improvement by physician and patient assessment indicated clinical improvement for both procedures but did not demonstrate statistical significance between treatments (P = 0·57, P = 0·32 for physician and patient, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Both Dermabrasion and electrobrasion improved scars, but there was no significant difference between the outcomes of the two procedures on several measures. Procedure time and bleeding time were significantly lower for electrobrasion.

Kristina A. Holmkvist - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • A Comparison of Dermabrasion and Superpulsed Carbon Dioxide Laser
    2017
    Co-Authors: Kristina A. Holmkvist, Gary S. Rogers
    Abstract:

    Objective: To directly compare the cosmetic outcome and adverse effects of Dermabrasion and superpulsed carbon dioxide laser for the treatment of perioral rhytides. Design: Subjects were randomly assigned to receive treatment with carbon dioxide laser resurfacing to one side of the perioral area and Dermabrasion to the other side in a prospective, comparative clinical study. The duration of follow-up by blinded observers was 4 months. Setting: University hospital-based dermatologic surgery clinic. Patients: Fifteen healthy fair-skinned volunteers with moderate to severe perioral rhytides and no history of prior cosmetic surgical procedures to the same anatomic area. Interventions: One half of the perioral area was treated with the LX-20SP Novapulse carbon dioxide laser (Luxar Corp, Bothell, Wash), and the other half was treated with Dermabrasion using either a hand engine‐driven diamond fraise or a medium-grade drywall sanding screen (3M Corp, St Paul, Minn). Main Outcome Measures: Improvement in rhytides, patients’ subjective reports of postoperative pain, time to reepithelialization, degree of postoperative crusting, and duration of postoperative erythema were observed for both methods. Standardized scoring systems were used to quantify outcome measures. Paired t tests were used for statistical comparisons of the 2 resurfacing methods. Results: The difference in rhytide scores for the 2 methods was not statistically significant (P=.35) at 4 months. Less postoperative crusting and more rapid reepithelialization were noted with the Dermabrasion-treated skin. Postoperative erythema was of longer duration on lasertreated skin. Patients reported less pain with Dermabrasion treatment. Subtle differences that were difficult to quantify were also noted between the methods. Conclusions: Both Dermabrasion and carbon dioxide laser resurfacing are effective in the treatment of perioral rhytides. Both methods have unique advantages and disadvantages.

  • treatment of perioral rhytides a comparison of Dermabrasion and superpulsed carbon dioxide laser
    Archives of Dermatology, 2000
    Co-Authors: Kristina A. Holmkvist, Gary S. Rogers
    Abstract:

    Objective To directly compare the cosmetic outcome and adverse effects of Dermabrasion and superpulsed carbon dioxide laser for the treatment of perioral rhytides. Design Subjects were randomly assigned to receive treatment with carbon dioxide laser resurfacing to one side of the perioral area and Dermabrasion to the other side in a prospective, comparative clinical study. The duration of follow-up by blinded observers was 4 months. Setting University hospital-based dermatologic surgery clinic. Patients Fifteen healthy fair-skinned volunteers with moderate to severe perioral rhytides and no history of prior cosmetic surgical procedures to the same anatomic area. Interventions One half of the perioral area was treated with the LX-20SP Novapulse carbon dioxide laser (Luxar Corp, Bothell, Wash), and the other half was treated with Dermabrasion using either a hand engine–driven diamond fraise or a medium-grade drywall sanding screen (3M Corp, St Paul, Minn). Main Outcome Measures Improvement in rhytides, patients' subjective reports of postoperative pain, time to reepithelialization, degree of postoperative crusting, and duration of postoperative erythema were observed for both methods. Standardized scoring systems were used to quantify outcome measures. Paired t tests were used for statistical comparisons of the 2 resurfacing methods. Results The difference in rhytide scores for the 2 methods was not statistically significant ( P =.35) at 4 months. Less postoperative crusting and more rapid reepithelialization were noted with the Dermabrasion-treated skin. Postoperative erythema was of longer duration on laser-treated skin. Patients reported less pain with Dermabrasion treatment. Subtle differences that were difficult to quantify were also noted between the methods. Conclusions Both Dermabrasion and carbon dioxide laser resurfacing are effective in the treatment of perioral rhytides. Both methods have unique advantages and disadvantages.

William Frank - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Therapeutic Dermabrasion-Reply
    Archives of Dermatology, 1995
    Co-Authors: William Frank
    Abstract:

    My recent editorial regarding Dermabrasion was intended to provide an overview of the procedure and briefly discuss its current applications. Although one might presume that Dermabrasion of tattoos would routinely lead to scarring, Clabaugh1,2showed in his study of Dermabrasion of 250 tattoos that good-to-excellent results were found in 85% of cases. Only four cases of scarring were observed. These results have been corroborated by the clinical experience of clinicians who have performed hundreds of these procedures (J. Yarborough, MD, and W. Clabaugh, MD, oral communication, November 1994). With the technique of superficial Dermabrasion, no attempt is made to mechanically remove all pigment from the dermis. After performing shallow planing, most of the pigment exits the skin through transepidermal elimination and as well by engulfment by phagocytes. Dermabrasion does allow excellent direct visualization of anatomic depth. Pinpoint capillary bleeding, the landmark of the papillary dermis, is not visible after

  • Therapeutic Dermabrasion: Back to the Future
    Archives of dermatology, 1994
    Co-Authors: William Frank
    Abstract:

    IN THIS ISSUE of theArchives, Hamm et al1demonstrate that Hailey-Hailey disease can be well controlled and potentially cured with Dermabrasion. The evidence suggests that by removal of involved epidermis and superficial dermis, this disease process can be markedly altered. In disorders where amelioration or cure can be obtained by selective tissue destruction, ablative therapies can be invaluable. If the pathologic process does not extend below the deep reticular dermis, complete removal with Dermabrasion is possible. Because facial skin heals without visible scarring when it is dermabraded into dermis, there is an advantage over other modalities. Scarring is more common when Dermabrasion is performed on nonfacial areas, as evidenced in Hamm and colleagues' study. Of course, if the cutaneous manifestations of the disease are induced by systemic factors or are the result of pathologic processes extending deep into subcutaneous tissue, ablative therapies may result in either recurrence or